Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So a vehicles gets wrecked in difficult terrain. 10 models disembark
Because the vehicle is 1 inch from the edge of the terain 5 of the models are in it and 5 are standing on regular terain.
Does he make a Dangerous Terain test for all 10 that disembarked or just the 5 that are now standing in the terain?

o o o o o
-------------------------
x x x x x
/-------\
\_V__/

------------------------

V is the vehicle
x marines disembarked and standing in terain
o marines disembarked and standing out of terain

Updated because of silly wording on my part

Models take dangerous terrain tests, not units.

The ones in the terrain take the test, the ones outside of the terrain do not, in my opinion. However, I also don't have a rulebook with me, so someone please check me on this.

No I think that's right because of the criteria you stated - it's a model by model basis, so ones that had made it to safety would not need to test.

FIrst off - if the terrain is Difficult and not Dangerous then NOONE takes a test, as disembarking is not a normal move and so no 2D6 roll is made.

If the terrain is *dangerous* then you would take a dangerous terrain test for each *model* that moves through Dangerous Terrain - as SaintHazard states above it is always individual models, not units, that make dangerous terrain checks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FIrst off - if the terrain is Difficult and not Dangerous then NOONE takes a test, as disembarking is not a normal move and so no 2D6 roll is made.

If the terrain is *dangerous* then you would take a dangerous terrain test for each *model* that moves through Dangerous Terrain - as SaintHazard states above it is always individual models, not units, that make dangerous terrain checks.

Thanks for the catch there, I misread "difficult" as "dangerous" for some reason.

Nos is correct in that they wouldn't take a dangerous terrain test if they're simply disembarking in difficult terrain, but if they were in dangerous terrain, they would.

It's ok, the OP states the terrain is difficult then talks about dangerous terrain tests ....

thanks nosferatu! I was under the impression that units dissembarking in difficult terain had to take a dangerous test..

I also corrected the wording in my post as I clearly ment model not unit

Now my question is basically when you disembark 2" does it count as the model moved those 2" going through the terain in my example or does he just "end up" 2" from the vehicle not having to test for difficult?

As Nos said, disembarking is not a normal move - the models may continue to move as normal if the vehicle did not move before the models disembarked. The ones outside of the terrain have not, therefore, moved "through" dangerous terrain. The models in dangerous terrain have. It's a little wonky, I know.

Kinda OT, but if you have a large unit where all the models are identical and they all end up in dangerous terrain, do you usually just make a mass roll and remove casualties as you would from say a shooting attack, or do you actually make a roll for each model and remove the specific ones that fail. In friendly games, we usually just do the first to save time and roll individually for any unique models in the unit...but I could see having to stick with the second method when playing in a tournament or against someone you don't know.

Regardless of whether a unit is full of identical models, you still roll everything individually, even armor saves and the like.

Wound allocation doesn't say you can just roll 10 dice for your 10 identical Ork Boyz and remove whatever models you want - it says you distribute the dice evenly in wound allocation among groups of identical models. So, say you have a 10 man tactical squad, with 7 bolters, 1 heavy bolter, 1 meltagun, and 1 sergeant. You take eight wounds. You decide to allocate to bolter marines first, so you distribute seven wounds to the seven bolter marines. Then you decide to allocate to the meltagun. So you put one wound on the meltagun. The heavy bolter and the sergeant do not take a wound. You then roll saves individually. The models that fail their saves are removed.

This confuses a lot of people.

So for dangerous terrain tests, they're effectively taking one test each, which you'd roll individually, and then the models (not the unit) that took wounds would be removed. You can't just roll 10 tests, take 5 wounds, and take off 5 models arbitrarily.

Hazard: Wound allocation does not have a "Like models first" clause. You can allocate the wounds however you like so l0ong as they are evenly distributed amongst the models in the squad; you then roll for Saves in identical model groups.

In you 10 marines with 8 wounds to allocate example you can perfectly well allocate 6 to the bolter marines, 1 to the heavy , and 1 to the sgt.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Hazard: Wound allocation does not have a "Like models first" clause. You can allocate the wounds however you like so l0ong as they are evenly distributed amongst the models in the squad; you then roll for Saves in identical model groups.

In you 10 marines with 8 wounds to allocate example you can perfectly well allocate 6 to the bolter marines, 1 to the heavy , and 1 to the sgt.

I need to have my BRB on me before I can refute this one, but I'm fairly certain I've read a "like models allocated together" clause in there.

Anyway, this is definitely OT.

May I PM you later today when I have my rulebook handy?

Well on multiple wound models, we still only assign one wound per model as we know that the tests are supposed to be on an individual model basis. We just roll the tests and saves together to save time as opposed to pointing to a model and rolling the DT test, then rolling inv save (if they have it), point to the next model, roll DT, roll inv save, rinse and repeat 30x. I was just wondering if other people were doing it in friendly games, but since it can make a difference (being forced to lose models from the front of the unit that puts you out of assault range, instead of just being able to choose models from the back) I can totally understand if no one does it.

I personally do not do it that way. I roll them all individually.

Pg 14 says roll a die for every model and on a 1 the model suffers a wound with no cover or armor save. I roll similar groups and then roll wounds individually to see which bolter marine bit it.

mrwhoop wrote:Pg 14 says roll a die for every model and on a 1 the model suffers a wound with no cover or armor save. I roll similar groups and then roll wounds individually to see which bolter marine bit it.

As do I. Like in the example of a Tactical squad, if the entire squad goes through Dangerous Terrain, I would roll 7 dice at once for the Bolters, then 1 die individually for the Heavy Weapon, Special Weapon, and then the Sgt.

I don't have the BRB in front of me either, but I don't think it stipulates that you have to roll individually for Dangerous Terrain tests for models that are alike. The way wounds are allocated normally when being shot at or wounded in CC is fairly practical, and I don't see why it shouldn't be employed also when taking Dangerous Terrain tests. But to each their own, I guess....

The problem with that approach, and any wound allocation procedure that allows you to roll in groups, is that it allows you to tailor your group - you can just take off three dead Marines from the back, keeping the rest in assault range, or you can take Marines off the front, to keep the enemy from assaulting YOU... whereas if you allocate wounds or dangerous terrain tests to individual models and roll them each individually, it's more fair. You could lose three Marines out of the middle and one in the front, or any combination, and it keeps you from "allocating to your advantage," if you will.

In a tournament setting, I will always ask my opponent to allocate before rolling for exactly this reason.

It does stipulate: for every model roll a d6. On a 1 "the model suffers a wound". Not unit or group, hmm maybe I shouldn't even be rolling for like groups...

This isn't like wound allocation, if 3 bolters get in DT, they would test and any model failing it would be the one to get the wound. Like 'gets hot' is my line of thinking

*edited for clarity

I see what you're saying, Hazard, and when it comes to taking DT tests for models, I would agree with you, based on what mrwhoop cited out of the BRB.

However, I'm not so sure about that when allocating wounds to models when in CC or being shot at. And while I still don't have the BRB in front of me, I'm pretty sure that you roll for allocated wounds to alike models all at once, in those situations. I couldn't tell from your previous posts on the thread whether or not you allocate individually in EVERY situation, or just for taking DT tests. If it is latter, then please excuse and disregard this last statement.

No, I also allocate wounds to individual models before rolling saves.

It's unfairly advantageous and kind of nonsensical to have troops shooting at your unit, and remove models on the opposite side of the unit from the shooting models - or the other way around, it makes more sense but still unfairly advantageous to remove models from the front of your unit if you don't want them to be able to assault your unit.

The fairest way to play it is to allocate wounds to models and then roll saves individually, and remove models that fail their saves.

SaintHazard wrote:No, I also allocate wounds to individual models before rolling saves.

It's unfairly advantageous and kind of nonsensical to have troops shooting at your unit, and remove models on the opposite side of the unit from the shooting models - or the other way around, it makes more sense but still unfairly advantageous to remove models from the front of your unit if you don't want them to be able to assault your unit.

The fairest way to play it is to allocate wounds to models and then roll saves individually, and remove models that fail their saves.

While you may consider that the "fairest" way, it is entirely, 100% TOTALLY unsupported by the rules.

While you are correct in that you initially allocate wounding hits to individualy models, you are missing the step which states that you then *group models into identically in game terms models* and *roll their saves together*

Meaning you can choose who has failed your test how you like, assuming you fail less saves than you have models!

This is the opposite way to Dang-T, where you DO remove the exact model that failed.

I also thought it was nonsense to remove those bolter extras when I templated/blasted the PC marine in the open. But then I played a guy that rolled individually: I forget the numbers left but in the end he gave 4 wounds to the scrub marines with 1 having 2. Failing 3 saves he removed 2 models because "one marine failed both saves." I didn't know the wound allocation as well as I do now and that was the only example I can recall from that game.

The wound allocation is, I think, a decent system that needs strategic thinking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:No, I also allocate wounds to individual models before rolling saves.

It's unfairly advantageous and kind of nonsensical to have troops shooting at your unit, and remove models on the opposite side of the unit from the shooting models - or the other way around, it makes more sense but still unfairly advantageous to remove models from the front of your unit if you don't want them to be able to assault your unit.

The fairest way to play it is to allocate wounds to models and then roll saves individually, and remove models that fail their saves.

While you may consider that the "fairest" way, it is entirely, 100% TOTALLY unsupported by the rules.

While you are correct in that you initially allocate wounding hits to individualy models, you are missing the step which states that you then *group models into identically in game terms models* and *roll their saves together*

Meaning you can choose who has failed your test how you like, assuming you fail less saves than you have models!

This is the opposite way to Dang-T, where you DO remove the exact model that failed.

Fair enough.

Allocating the way that you have suggested can reduce the number of wounds taken whilst never increasing the number of wounds taken. example, three identical marines taking six wounds

1. pass pass
2. pass fail
3. fail fail

Two dead. Except that rolling groups of like models together means that three should have died.

SaintHazard wrote:In a tournament setting, I will always ask my opponent to allocate before rolling for exactly this reason.

You've never had an opponent tell you "thanks, but I'll do it how the rule book says"?

SaintHazard wrote:The problem with that approach, and any wound allocation procedure that allows you to roll in groups, is that it allows you to tailor your group - you can just take off three dead Marines from the back, keeping the rest in assault range, or you can take Marines off the front, to keep the enemy from assaulting YOU...

Which is only a problem if you think it's not how the rules are supposed to work.

It actually explains in the Wound Allocation section why they allow it to work this way. It's all part of the more unit-based focus of this edition, combined with the fact that the unit is theoretically not a static group of models standing there waiting to be shot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:No, I also allocate wounds to individual models before rolling saves.

It's unfairly advantageous and kind of nonsensical to have troops shooting at your unit, and remove models on the opposite side of the unit from the shooting models - or the other way around, it makes more sense but still unfairly advantageous to remove models from the front of your unit if you don't want them to be able to assault your unit.

The fairest way to play it is to allocate wounds to models and then roll saves individually, and remove models that fail their saves.

While you may consider that the "fairest" way, it is entirely, 100% TOTALLY unsupported by the rules.

While you are correct in that you initially allocate wounding hits to individualy models, you are missing the step which states that you then *group models into identically in game terms models* and *roll their saves together*

Meaning you can choose who has failed your test how you like, assuming you fail less saves than you have models!

This is the opposite way to Dang-T, where you DO remove the exact model that failed.

The rules for taking casualties due to dangerous terrain states "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed (wounds and saves are explained in the next section)"

In the next section (which if you look on the next page, is The Shooting Phase) it states, under Remove Casualties "Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all of the firers."

I personally agree that it doesn't make sense that a model which is not in dangerous terrain may be removed, and that you as a player would rather kill off all the models in dangerous terrain so you don't have to make another test next turn, I still can't get my mind to agree that the rules say only models in difficult terrain may be removed, when in fact it states that up until that point removing casualties have not been explained and neither has wound allocation - and it's referencing the shooting section as a way to explain how this is done!

I fully blame it on the way the layout of the rule book, where the turns are explained as the main part while the concepts which the different turns may inflict on the player are not explained in sequence they may appear, but arbitrarily when it "makes sense". If they had had a section called "Taking wounds" instead of a section called "The Shooting Phase", it would be a lot clearer.

Scott-S6 wrote:Allocating the way that you have suggested can reduce the number of wounds taken whilst never increasing the number of wounds taken. example, three identical marines taking six wounds

1. pass pass
2. pass fail
3. fail fail

Two dead. Except that rolling groups of like models together means that three should have died.

Yes, that's the inherent flaw in my own system, which is why I abandon it if my opponent has objections.

Scott-S6 wrote:You've never had an opponent tell you "thanks, but I'll do it how the rule book says"?

I have, and we did. It's honestly not a big deal.

insaniak wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:The problem with that approach, and any wound allocation procedure that allows you to roll in groups, is that it allows you to tailor your group - you can just take off three dead Marines from the back, keeping the rest in assault range, or you can take Marines off the front, to keep the enemy from assaulting YOU...

Which is only a problem if you think it's not how the rules are supposed to work.

It actually explains in the Wound Allocation section why they allow it to work this way. It's all part of the more unit-based focus of this edition, combined with the fact that the unit is theoretically not a static group of models standing there waiting to be shot.

Fair enough, but considering that most of the actions happening on the tabletop are supposedly happening at roughly the same time, in a span of seconds and minutes rather than the hours it actually takes, I still think removing models anywhere you please is a bit unrealistic.

But again, see above.

To Mahtamori- I thought the DT was like 'gets hot' in that the model suffers a wound, not the unit/you get to allocate the wound. Is this a goof on my reading of


I personally agree that it doesn't make sense that a model which is not in dangerous terrain may be removed, and that you as a player would rather kill off all the models in dangerous terrain so you don't have to make another test next turn, I still can't get my mind to agree that the rules say only models in difficult terrain may be removed, when in fact it states that up until that point removing casualties have not been explained and neither has wound allocation - and it's referencing the shooting section as a way to explain how this is done!

mrwhoop wrote:To Mahtamori- I thought the DT was like 'gets hot' in that the model suffers a wound

It is, see his quote even. In other situations the unit takes the wound.

Right, right, but he said "that a model which is not in dangerous terrain may be removed" and then "the rules say only models in difficult terrain may be removed"

Isn't it contrary? Only the model in the terrain takes the test and is removed...was he referring another post or am did I put my head in the microwave again? Was he referring to a unit being shot removing whatever model he allocates?

Forget it, I understand how the rule works, that's good enough for me.